ROBERTO CRUZ-BETANZOS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Appellant challenged the summary denial of his Rule 3.850 postconviction relief motion, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to advise him to accept a nine-year plea offer, resulting in a more severe fifteen-year sentence after trial. The court affirmed the denial of the first ground but reversed and remanded the second ground for an evidentiary hearing because the appellant's allegations regarding the plea offer were facially sufficient.
The court affirmed the summary denial of ground one but reversed and remanded ground two because the appellant made facially sufficient allegations that counsel was ineffective regarding the plea offer, satisfying the four-part test for prejudice in plea negotiations requiring an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failure to advise on a plea offer must demonstrate a reasonable probability that they would have accepted the o…
[2] A trial court's summary denial of a motion for postconviction relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel regarding a plea offer is reversible if the defendant's al…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a plea bargain has been offered, a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it. If that right is denied, prejudice can be shown if loss of the plea opportunity led to a trial resulting in a conviction on more serious charges or the imposition of a more severe sentence.”
Establishes the fundamental right to effective assistance in plea negotiations under Lafler v. Cooper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant received a fifteen-year sentence after trial. He alleges that counsel failed to advise him of a nine-year plea offer that was available,…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plea Bargaining cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm the denial of ground one without further discussion. We reverse and remand the denial of ground two for further proceedings.
In ground two, the appellant alleges that counsel was ineffective for failing to advise him to take a nine-year plea offer. See Lafler v. Cooper, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 1376, 1387, 182 L.Ed.2d 398 (2012) (“If a plea bargain has been offered, a defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel in considering whether to accept it. If that right is. denied, prejudice can be shown if loss of the plea opportunity led to a trial resulting in a conviction on more serious charges or the imposition of a more severe sentence.”); Missouri v. Frye — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1399, 1409, 182 L.Ed.2d 379 (2012) (“To show prejudice ... where a plea offer has lapsed or been rejected because of counsel’s deficient performance, defendants must demonstrate a reasonable probability they would have accepted the earlier plea offer had they been afforded effective assistance of counsel ... [and] a reasonable probability the plea would have been entered without the prosecution canceling it or the trial court refusing to accept it.”). When determining whether a defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficiencies during the plea process, a defendant must show “that (1) he or she would have accepted the offer had counsel advised the defendant correctly, (2) the prosecutor would not have withdrawn the offer, (3) the court would have accepted the offer, and (4) the conviction or sentence, or both, under the offer’s terms would have been less severe than under the judgment and sentence that in fact were imposed.” Alcorn v. State, 121 So.3d 419, 422 (Fla.2013) (citing Frye and Lafler). Here, the appellant alleges that a nine-year offer was made, that he would have accepted it had he been properly advised, that the state would not have rescinded the offer, that the trial court would have accepted it; and that the offer of nine years was less than the fifteen-year sentence he ultimately received. The trial court’s attachments do not refute the appellant’s facially sufficient allegations. Thus, we reverse and remand the denial of ground two for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing.1
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED and REMANDED in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
THOMAS, MARSTILLER, and KELSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wait v. State, 212 So. 3d 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)…ial court would have accepted the plea offer; and (4) the conviction or sentence or both would have been less severe under the plea offer than the defendant received under the judgment and sentence that were actually imposed. Cruz-Betanzos v. State, 169 So. 3d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). All criteria here are met. Because of defense counsel’s ineffective legal advice, Appellant was denied the opportunity to make an informed choice, and the record shows that had he been properly informed, in blunt, no-uncer…
Authorities Cited
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012)
- Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013)
- Missouri v. Frye, 566 U.S. 134 (U.S. 2012)